Characters you just DO NOT understand people like

[rayarts]

So how is he evil? The only person of power that takes the wildling threat seriously and takes action, the only one of power who wants to save the realm and knows the others are an actual threat. Because he burns people? Let's take a look at the people he has burned, Alester Florent who was doing deals with Tywin behind Stannis's back and was going to sell Shireen to the Lannisters as a hostage, and cannibals that is about the extent of people who have been burned. Because he killed Renly? He offered him fair terms, Renly rebuked him and was the one who was commiting true treason, he had no lawful claim, and said himself that he wanted his brother dead, yeah great guy.

In fact there you go, I don't know how people liked Renly, he was the one was who motivated by ambition to attain power. He's the one who left Ned there with his pants down, running away in the middle of the night like a coward and got Ned killed, Stannis offered him very fair terms and he laughed it off like it was some joke. Renly is one of my least favorite characters yet some people love him.

Is Stannis perfect? For from it, he is very flawed, and not really even a good guy, but to say he is evil, I just think that is stretch.

Whether Renly was a great guy or a douchebag doesn't matter AT ALL. Stannis killed his brother and just for this he'd deserve the ultimate punishment and this crime makes him evil. JUST THIS crime. And he committed a lot more.

So yeah, he IS evil because he did plenty of evil things - it doesn't matter whether this served a greater good, his power or whatever in his mind.

If Stannis had not killed Renly and many, many other people, he would not be evil. (And again, it doesn't matter what character Renly had, if Renly had killed Stannis, then he'd be evil, too, and guilty of kinslaying, too)

I don't get what the problem with the definition is -

you kill part of your family, you kill innocent people because of their believes - that should be considered evil no matter in who's book. You do evil things, you are evil, its simple as that. No matter how "just" you think you are in your motives (or how funny as a character you are) Or whether you are the saviour of the world - it doesn't matter. Otherwise anybody could defend ANY F***ING CRIME. Murder is murder. And funny enough, Stannis would punish any other person for the crimes he did at once with a deathsentence. But yeah, he himself is just so above all evil.

[James of the Blackwater]

Whether Renly was a great guy or a douchebag doesn't matter AT ALL. Stannis killed his brother and just for this he'd deserve the ultimate punishment and this crime makes him evil. JUST THIS crime. And he committed a lot more.

So yeah, he IS evil because he did plenty of evil things - it doesn't matter whether this served a greater good, his power or whatever in his mind.

If Stannis had not killed Renly and many, many other people, he would not be evil. (And again, it doesn't matter what character Renly had, if Renly had killed Stannis, then he'd be evil, too, and guilty of kinslaying, too)

I don't get what the problem with the definition is -

you kill part of your family, you kill innocent people because of their believes - that should be considered evil no matter in who's book. You do evil things, you are evil, its simple as that. No matter how "just" you think you are in your motives (or how funny as a character you are) Or whether you are the saviour of the world - it doesn't matter. Otherwise anybody could defend ANY F***ING CRIME. Murder is murder. And funny enough, Stannis would punish any other person for the crimes he did at once with a deathsentence. But yeah, he himself is just so above all evil.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe that if you do one evil act it makes you evil, simple as that. People have made mistakes, evil mistakes but can still be a good person. When I think of someone who is evil I think of someone who commits multiple evil acts and has no moral compass or shows any signs of remorse. Joffrey is evil, Ramsay is evil. Stannis shows remorse for what happened to Renly, but all of his motivations are for duty to the realm, to save it. In my opinion an evil person would be motivated to destroy the realm. But that's me, you are entitled to your opnion and we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Frey Pie]

And his resigning helped Dany how? Did he do something to help the innocent who was in danger? No, he didn't. But his honour was safe, so it was all peachy with him. And he didn't even want the power he resigned, so it wasn't as if he was giving up something he wanted.

He did so for his own children. Big difference. He had no regrets killing the Night Watch deserter because he reneged on his duty. Earth to Ned: his duty was to stay firm in the face of the injustice, sacrificing the most precious things he had since it was no less than what he demanded of others.

Yes, he started a war against the mad king to stop the murder of children, in his own words. In words alone. He ran back to Robert to reconcile as soon as Lyanna died because Robert condoning the murder of children and rewarding the one who ordered it was so much different than when Aerys did it. At least Aerys had the defense of being mad. Robert was just a dick. A dick that Ned kept lionizing to his children after this unpleasant murder of children business. I see no reason to think he wouldn't have reconciled with him again after Dany's sad, sad death.

He stared down the great Bobby B. over a wolf - is this supposed to impress me? Ned is great at staring people down, judging them, shouting and basically doing nothing.

He didn't think he was putting himself in danger over the Cersei matter, although I agree he acted out of conviction that her children were innocent.

There was something he could have done to try and save Dany - send a warning, anything. He didn't.

No wonder he and Barristan Only Loves His Honour Selmy got along so well.

When do we ever hear of Ned being relieved that his honour was safe? He didn't protest for himself

And I actually agree he could have done more but what then? Send a message to Dany and have himself commit treason? I don't think he could have done anything more then what he did without there being huge repercussions for his family and region. He did what he could to keep Dany safe, same as Jon Arryn but as is repeated several times the Targ hate was a madness in Robert

And Ned had no reason to believe the NW deserter. He didn't revel in the man's death, he felt it was his duty. We know he was wrong but who else did? If somebody escapes from prison and tells you there are vampires about would you believe them? Unfortunately ned was wrong here and yes he killed an innocent but I don't find fault with him for this

Agreed completely that Ned had the veil over his eyes about Robert for far too long but how many people did? Poor Stannis still lives in his shadow

In any case we can agree so that Ned did protect innocents as we see he did so with Myrcella, Tommen, Joffrey and Jon. Along with Sansa, Arya and the confession

[Dofs]

Quote about Rossart

Yeah, that's what I've said.

Quote about Jaime's intention to leave and have someone else be blamed or praised for it.

You make it sound as if Jaime wanted to frame somebody.

[Dofs]

You are completely right. My sincere apologies, I just searched through my e-books and you are right. I made an assumption on a mistake.

Still don't like Jaime though. :)

I actually can't believe I missed that. I have re-read the books several times.

That's only natural to miss a lot about character you are not particular interested in. :) I know based on my own experience.

[sweetsunray]

Yeah, that's what I've said.

You make it sound as if Jaime wanted to frame somebody.

He was not going to point a finger at someone, but his intentions (as it his memory and thus POV and reflection on the events of that history) were to leave and let someone either be blamed for it by others, or claim it. The quote could have just read 'it was too late to leave', period. But he adds 'and to let some braggard...' HIs intention was not just to sneak out and leave, but also let someone either claim the deed or be blamed for it. It means that at the time he would someone take the blame for it, AND we know from The Dance of the Dragons, that actually might mean a dead sentence, as that was what happened to the Kingmaker who had poisoned Aegon, once the Stark of the time reached the keep and took King's Landing.

[The Skinner]

Oberyn, yea dude had a cool rep and nickname but he showed up for half of book 3 and dies at the end. Sure he fought the mountain, and that is dope, but he still lost and only killed him because of poison; otherwise he just sits there making jokes and while I like that it doesn't endear me to him like it does some, who seem to have it in their heads that the Red Viper was the greatest thing to happen to westeros since Aegon I

[rayarts]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe that if you do one evil act it makes you evil, simple as that. People have made mistakes, evil mistakes but can still be a good person. When I think of someone who is evil I think of someone who commits multiple evil acts and has no moral compass or shows any signs of remorse. Joffrey is evil, Ramsay is evil. Stannis shows remorse for what happened to Renly, but all of his motivations are for duty to the realm, to save it. In my opinion an evil person would be motivated to destroy the realm. But that's me, you are entitled to your opnion and we will just have to agree to disagree.

This definition of "not evil" could be used to justify any crime that was committed for the "greater good".

So yes, we most definitely disagree

[James of the Blackwater]

This definition of "not evil" could be used to justify any crime that was committed for the "greater good".

So yes, we most definitely disagree

So would you consider Tyrion evil? He did have Symon Silver Tongue turned into a bowl of brown in Flea Bottom, and he did murder his father.

What about Arya? She murdered a Bolton guard who was just doing his duty to escape Harrenhall, hell maybe that guy was a good dude who just drew guard duty that night, is Arya evil?

How about the 163 Great Masters of Mereen Dany crucifued without trial, maybe 30 of them were innocent of any wrong doing and were even against the crucifying of the 163 children, does that make Dany evil?

Just making sure that your views are constant with all characters, I believe all of these characters have commited an evil act or two, but I do not believe any of them are evil.

[HexMachina]

I'm going to use the same source as someone else because I read through it a bit :P

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140423?page=3

"Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I've asked people who do have children, "Well, what would you do in Jaime's situation?" They say, "Well, I'm not a bad guy – I wouldn't kill." Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he's going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

Then many of them hesitate. Probably more people than not would say, "Yeah, I would kill someone else's child to save my own child, even if that other child was innocent." These are the difficult decisions people make, and they're worth examining."

He was protecting himself, Cersei and his children even if he wasn't thinking about them at the time.

So? Why should Bran suffer because Jaime and Cersei committed treason and took the risk of discovery and death in the first place? It's a villainous act, and it was done to try and hide another illegal and wrong act. I'm not a utilitarian, so I completely disagree that Jaime was justified in doing as he did

[Sullen]

In fact there you go, I don't know how people liked Renly, he was the one was who motivated by ambition to attain power. He's the one who left Ned there with his pants down, running away in the middle of the night like a coward and got Ned killed, Stannis offered him very fair terms and he laughed it off like it was some joke. Renly is one of my least favorite characters yet some people love him.

Renly only seeks to attain power to save his own ass. He tried to remove Lannister influence from the court twice before, both cases failed so he had to resort to crowning himself if he wanted to survive in a Lannister-ruled regime. It was not ambition, it was preservation.

Eddard is completely responsible for what happened to him, had he listened to Renly, he would still be alive and regent in King's Landing. If you call Renly a coward for fleeing the capital once Robert dies, then Stannis is an even bigger one for fleeing while Robert was still very much alive, in danger, and needed him.

As for Stannis's "generous terms" you've got to be shitting me, Renly outnumbered him 20 to 1, would have likely lost the support of the Tyrells if he followed him, and would have been unlikely to ever see the Throne even should Stannis win the war, considering Stannis is still a young man, and thus still very much fertile. Renly, on the other hand, offered freaking Storm's End to Stannis, and to make him his temporary heir. Considering how stacked the odds were in his favor, you could say Renly's offer was freaking magnanimous.

OT: I don't understand people liking Roose Bolton... he's so bland and generic in comparison to Tywin and Joffrey, I don't know how we're supposed to take him seriously as the next "big villain".

[James of the Blackwater]

Renly only seeks to attain power to save his own ass. He tried to remove Lannister influence from the court twice before, both cases failed so he had to resort to crowning himself if he wanted to survive in a Lannister-ruled regime. It was not ambition, it was preservation.

Eddard is completely responsible for what happened to him, had he listened to Renly, he would still be alive and regent in King's Landing. If you call Renly a coward for fleeing the capital once Robert dies, then Stannis is an even bigger one for fleeing while Robert was still very much alive, in danger, and needed him.

As for Stannis's "generous terms" you've got to be shitting me, Renly outnumbered him 20 to 1, would have likely lost the support of the Tyrells if he followed him, and would have been unlikely to ever see the Throne even should Stannis win the war, considering Stannis is still a young man, and thus still very much fertile. Renly, on the other hand, offered freaking Storm's End to Stannis, and to make him his temporary heir. Considering how stacked the odds were in his favor, you could say Renly's offer was freaking magnanimous.

OT: I don't understand people liking Roose Bolton... he's so bland and generic in comparison to Tywin and Joffrey, I don't know how we're supposed to take him seriously as the next "big villain".

So it's ok then for Ramsay to jump the line of succession then and commit treason? If he was just about saving his ass, he could of joined his force to Stannis, supported his better claim and cleaned house at KL, so I do not believe his motivation was about saving his ass, it was about him ruling the Seven Kingdoms.

[Sullen]

So it's ok then for Ramsay to jump the line of succession then and commit treason? If he was just about saving his ass, he could of joined his force to Stannis, supported his better claim and cleaned house at KL, so I do not believe his motivation was about saving his ass, it was about him ruling the Seven Kingdoms.

No, siding with Stannis means the Tyrells turn against them, which means they pretty much their asses get handed to them. The book notes quite often that Stannis as the King is the worst endgame possible for the Tyrells, before Stannis even rebels.

Also, he has no reason to join with Stannis, in his eyes, Stannis is just as treasonous as he is.

As for his intentions being "ruling the Seven Kingdoms", his actions prior to that point to the contrary. If anything, the only recurring element in all of his schemes is that he wants to Lannisters to lose influence in King's Landing, not necessarily at his profit.

First by replacing Cersei by Marge as Queen, which gives him a minimal amount of influence but makes his friends happy and reduces the dangers the Lannisters represent in the Capital.

Secondly by installing Ned as a regent, as Robert willed it to be. But then Ned had to ruin it all for honour, only to do the exact same thing Renly's plan entailed, but at the wrong time, which resulted in his execution. Again, Renly would have not gained much from the plot succeeding.

[Dofs]

He was not going to point a finger at someone, but his intentions (as it his memory and thus POV and reflection on the events of that history) were to leave and let someone either be blamed for it by others, or claim it. The quote could have just read 'it was too late to leave', period. But he adds 'and to let some braggard...' HIs intention was not just to sneak out and leave, but also let someone either claim the deed or be blamed for it. It means that at the time he would someone take the blame for it, AND we know from The Dance of the Dragons, that actually might mean a dead sentence, as that was what happened to the Kingmaker who had poisoned Aegon, once the Stark of the time reached the keep and took King's Landing.

No. Jaime says that a "braggard" will claim that he killed the king. That means that Jaime had no intentions for anyone to take that blame for him. Jaime just intended to kill Aerys and tell nobody about it. Jaime just assumed (correctly, imo) that without a true criminal showing up, somebody would try and claim that he killed the king himself, for glory, rewards etc.

[James of the Blackwater]

Look, I didn't think Renly was a bad guy, and I think he would of been a decent king, it doesn't change the fact that I do believe he was motivated by ambition, he wanted the throne so he gave his older brother, the rightful claimant since we know the Baratheon children are truly Lannisters, the middle finger and committed treason. That's what I think, and if you think he was motivated by other means, then that's what you think and we'll end it there.

[Sullen]

Look, I didn't think Renly was a bad guy, and I think he would of been a decent king, it doesn't change the fact that I do believe he was motivated by ambition, he wanted the throne so he gave his older brother, the rightful claimant since we know the Baratheon children are truly Lannisters, the middle finger and committed treason. That's what I think, and if you think he was motivated by other means, then that's what you think and we'll end it there.

Since WE know that Stannis's claim is legit.

But as far as RENLY knows, Stannis is as much as a usurper, mate.. only, while Renly has the decency to be honest about his claim, Stannis resorts to a convenient lie to sit himself on the Throne. Remember, when asked about proof, even Stannis admits that he has absolutely none, why should Renly believe his ambitious, dour, self-important brother over his own claim? Especially when supporting him would endanger the Baratheon both of them even further?

[Adaneth]

No. Jaime says that a "braggard" will claim that he killed the king.

Jaime just assumed (correctly, imo) that without a true criminal showing up, somebody would try and claim that he killed the king himself, for glory, rewards etc.

No. Jamie thought both, praise or blame.

It didn't matter which one.

"Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame.

[sweetsunray]

No. Jaime says that a "braggard" will claim that he killed the king. That means that Jaime had no intentions for anyone to take that blame for him. Jaime just intended to kill Aerys and tell nobody about it. Jaime just assumed (correctly, imo) that without a true criminal showing up, somebody would try and claim that he killed the king himself, for glory, rewards etc.

"Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him..."

So, you are wrong! I have quoted from the text twice now, to prove twice now to you that Jaime includes "blame" with it. It is "steal the praise OR blame", and yes that means exactly that Jaime would have let anyone else take the blame for it and possibly death. He wasn't going to frame someone, but if someone else would get blamed he wouldn't have lifted a finger for him... that is what that sentence means. That he had the intention to allow someone else to take the fall for it, if he managed to vanish before anyone found out it had been him.

[James of the Blackwater]

Since WE know that Stannis's claim is legit.

But as far as RENLY knows, Stannis is as much as a usurper, mate.. only, while Renly has the decency to be honest about his claim, Stannis resorts to a convenient lie to sit himself on the Throne. Remember, when asked about proof, even Stannis admits that he has absolutely none, why should Renly believe his ambitious, dour, self-important brother over his own claim? Especially when supporting him would endanger the Baratheon both of them even further?

Stannis did the same research that Jon Arryn and Ned did, they all came to the same conclusion, Stannis wasn't motivated by ambition he was motivated by duty, he says many times he doesn't even want the accursed chair but since he is so fickel with his duty it's his by rights so he must sit it. Renly schemed the second Robert died and tried to sway Ned to come to his side, is Renly so innocent in all of this?

Like I said we're most likely never going to agree on this subject.

[Sullen]

Stannis did the same research that Jon Arryn and Ned did, they all came to the same conclusion, Stannis wasn't motivated by ambition he was motivated by duty, he says many times he doesn't even want the accursed chair but since he is so fickel with his duty it's his by rights so he must sit it. Renly schemed the second Robert died and tried to sway Ned to come to his side, is Renly so innocent in all of this?

You might be confusing the show for the books if you think Renly tried to get Ned to come to his side, he suggested Ned took over the regency and Joffrey, not that he made Renly king. Renly essentially did the most he could to enforce Robert's actual will. Joffrey is in power under Ned's authority and supervision, not him.

Stannis didn't do the same research as Arryn and Ned, else he would have obviously mentioned "Lineages" and the inability of a Baratheon-Lannister coupling to produce blonde-haired offspring. Arryn found out just before he died, and by then, probably didn't have to time to convey his findings to Stannis.

Stannis might claim he doesn't want the Iron Throne and that he's all about duty, but he's full of shit. Duty doesn't matter when his ass is on the line, as we saw with how he treated the whole "Robert's children are not his and he might get murdered any day now" scenario, he ran away and withhold vital information from his King, that's high treason right there.

Thing is, Stannis wants to be special, it's part of his whole "unnoticed middle child syndrome", which is why he wants to be king, which is why he is so hasty to believe he's the freaking messiah when a foreign witch tells him so, and which is why he was willing to let his two brothers die so he can have the Throne.

I don't mind though, it makes him an extremely interesting and developed character (one of the best as far as non-PoV characters are concerned), and explains pretty much all of his actions, including saving the Wall. It does, however, make him a considerably worse person than either of his brothers.